Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1968–1985 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Carolina courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Monkgreen2 sentences1985See also State v. Monk, 291 N.C. 37, 47-48 , 229 S.E. 2d 163, 170-71 (1976). 1985See also State v. Monk, 291 N.C. 37, 47-48 , 229 S.E. 2d 163, 170-71 (1976). | 1 | 1 |
Loomis v. Torrencegreen2 sentences1972See Loomis v. Torrence, 259 N.C. 381 , 130 S.E. 2d 540 (1963). 1972See Loomis v. Torrence, 259 N.C. 381 , 130 S.E. 2d 540 (1963). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Rogers
green
2 sentences1971State v. Rogers, 273 N.C. 208 , 159 S.E. 2d 525 . 1971State v. Rogers, 273 N.C. 208 , 159 S.E. 2d 525 . | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Irby v. Southern Railway Company
green
2 sentences1969R., 246 N.C. 384 , 98 S.E. 2d 349 (1957), the Supreme Court said: “The discovery of the danger, or duty to discover it, as basis for a charge of negligence on the part of defendant after the peril arose, involves something more than a mere discovery of, or duty to discover, the presence of the injured person, it includes a duty, in the exercise of ordinary care under the circumstances, to appreciate the danger in time to take the steps necessary to avert the accident.” Applying the above principles of law to the evidence in this case, we are of the opinion and so hold that the court did not co 1969R., 246 N.C. 384 , 98 S.E. 2d 349 (1957), the Supreme Court said: “The discovery of the danger, or duty to discover it, as basis for a charge of negligence on the part of defendant after the peril arose, involves something more than a mere discovery of, or duty to discover, the presence of the injured person, it includes a duty, in the exercise of ordinary care under the circumstances, to appreciate the danger in time to take the steps necessary to avert the accident.” Applying the above principles of law to the evidence in this case, we are of the opinion and so hold that the court did not co | 1 | 1969–1969 |
Hoskins v. Hoskins
green
2 sentences1969Hoskins v. Hoskins, 259 N.C. 704 , 131 S.E. 2d 326 (1963). 1969Hoskins v. Hoskins, 259 N.C. 704 , 131 S.E. 2d 326 (1963). | 1 | 1969–1969 |
White v. . Comrs. of Johnston
green
2 sentences1968G.S. 28-173; Horney v. Pool Company, 267 N.C. 521 , 148 S.E. 2d 554 ; White v. Comrs. of Johnston, 217 N.C. 329 , 7 S.E. 2d 825 . 1968G.S. 28-173; Horney v. Pool Company, 267 N.C. 521 , 148 S.E. 2d 554 ; White v. Comrs. of Johnston, 217 N.C. 329 , 7 S.E. 2d 825 . | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Horney v. Meredith Swimming Pool Company
green
2 sentences1968G.S. 28-173; Horney v. Pool Company, 267 N.C. 521 , 148 S.E. 2d 554 ; White v. Comrs. of Johnston, 217 N.C. 329 , 7 S.E. 2d 825 . 1968G.S. 28-173; Horney v. Pool Company, 267 N.C. 521 , 148 S.E. 2d 554 ; White v. Comrs. of Johnston, 217 N.C. 329 , 7 S.E. 2d 825 . | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.